Talk:Kong Hee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- If good points is also mentioned, why delete a negative point about Kong hee? The leaving of his former Anglican Church is cited in that widely-published magazine. There's no question about that vaildity. Both side of views must be represented, but it's seemed bias towards one side & hence POV.
How to NPOV'ed on these points:
Tried my best to NPOV'ed it:
"an uncompromising" message on "Godly character and Holiness"(that was not mine)
- strongly on promoting character and Charismatic Christianity.
leaving his Anglican Church because of "some disagreements with the Anglican Church"(this was mine)
- leaving his Anglican Church because of disputes between the Anglican Church and himself on both sides.
Oh ya, removed POV tag (Not "NPOV" tag, Excuse my typo)
[edit] Removed paragraph
I've just moved the following pragraph here (after deleting it and having it reinserted):
- "According to its critics, they pointed out in an article1 that Rev. Kong Hee spoke of leaving his former Anglican Church as an ordained deacon in his early days because of disputes between the Anglican Church and himself on both sides."
My first problem is what it means, but I think that I can sort that out; it's either:
- "It has been claimed that Kong Hee has said that he had thought of leaving the Anglican Church when he was a young ordained deacon because of disputes between him and the Church.1"
or it's:
- "It has been claimed that Kong Hee has said that he left the Anglican Church when he was a young ordained deacon because of disputes between him and the Church.1"
Whichever it is, so what? What significance is this supposed to have? Moreover, what disputes? If this has any significance, it's presumably the nature of the disputes that matters. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism
Please have a look at this page: http://www.chc.org.sg/english/church.cfm
There seems to be quite a bit on Kong Hee's wiki page which read similarly to what's written on the church's official intro page. Yuyudevil 04:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Doctor title
According to Doctor of Theology, it is "not customary" to use the title Dr. (Doctor) for Th.D holder. Is there any different view on this? --Vsion 07:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- CHC website does not use Dr., it just use Rev. Kong Hee. We should follow the proper title of his. Use the standards of Doctor of Theology, some ministries of CHC uses doctor and some do not. I would like to repeat myself again, just follow what the official manner is. --Terence Ong 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] See also
What's the rational for linking to those under "See also"? If there is relevance, the name should appear under the main article section.
[edit] AfD discussion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kong Hee (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
There are some facts and figures that need to be cited, particularly the church attendance, the reach of his show and what he has done. - 218.186.9.5 06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Needs more third party sources. - 222.164.82.241 09:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- There are already citations from the Charisma Magazine and Ministries Today Magazine. Which particular area or figures in the article needs to be cited with third party sources?
Jing13 aka Mata 04:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of "Notability Tag"
Bulk of the article is talking about Kong Hee's education, positions held etc. I do not see a tag for "Notability".
Other then using the web page of City Harvest Church (Kong Hee being the Church Founder) as sources, Charisma Magazine and Ministries Today Magazine has also been quoted.
121.6.86.90 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KongHee 2006.jpg
Image:KongHee 2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)